What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955074?

The tribunal order states: Tim Jackson and Shelly Jackson must pay Bruce LK Davey and Helen Audrey

How much money was awarded in case 4955074?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,697.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955074?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11259207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955074?

The tribunal order states: Tim Jackson and Shelly Jackson must pay Bruce LK Davey and Helen Audrey

How much money was awarded in case 4955074?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,697.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955074?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11259207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

178 Rutland Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955074 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955074 — net $3,724.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018	$3,697.00	Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,724.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,724.00

Order

Tim Jackson and Shelly Jackson must pay Bruce LK Davey and Helen Audrey Bush $3,724.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018)$3,697.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,724.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,724.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. 1
The landlord has applied for rent following the early termination of a fixed term tenancy in 2018. The landlord claimed rent of $3,697.00 to 10 November 2018, when a new tenancy started.
The tenant’s acknowledged that they owed some rent; for the period to 24 October 2018. Rent owing to 24 October 2018 would have been $1,971.42. 2 1 I indicated that the parties would receive a decision before the Christmas break. However, it has taken longer than anticipated to thoroughly review the documents and correspondence which the parties referred to. 2 The tenant’s referred to a figure of $1,755.71 for rent. That figure is for the period to 22 October, as shown on the landlord rent summary. Timeline
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 24 October 2017 to 31 January 2019.
The tenants contacted the landlord by email on 7 August 2018 asking to change the term of the tenancy to 12 months. The reason given was that the house was cold and expensive to heat.
The landlord did not reply immediately. The tenants sent a further email on 14 August 2018 advising that there had been a prowler and stating that “we would like to move out as soon as possible.”
The landlord replied to both email on 15 August 2018 with some options, including: “We can break the tenancy agreement early provided we can find a suitable tenant at a similar rate, with your lease ending as soon as the replacement tenancy starts.”
Alternatively, the landlord put forward options for addressing heating and security concerns. The tenant’s reply (16 August 2018) was dismissive of the offers to review and address security concerns. It is apparent that the tenant had decided to move. The tenant also stated their belief that they had an option to “revert back to the standard 12-month period” and queried whether that was no longer an option. 3
There were email exchanges regarding the landlord’s request for access to assess the heating issue. The landlord did not comment on the request for early termination again, until 5 September 2018. At the hearing, the landlord’s position remained as set out in the 15 August email. It said that it did not agree to an early termination other than on that basis; that the tenant would pay rent until a new tenancy started.
The tenant sent a further email on 18 August 2018 stating, “we would like to confirm that our tenancy will end on 24 th October.”
On 31 August 2018 the tenant advised, “we have found somewhere to move to so will be out and the house available to new tenants from the 5 th October.”
I do not seem to have the full email exchange between the parties. However, the tenants provided an email from the landlord on 5 September which stated: “I want to organise viewings so that they are convenient for you, while still moving quickly to make it possible to solve the lease break with no consequences.” 3 The fixed term to January 2019 had been requested by the tenant and agreed to by the landlord. The landlord was open to reducing the term, but there was no agreement or “option” for the tenant to unilaterally reduce the term.
In the context of the landlord’s 15 August email, I find that the reference to “no consequences” is confirmation that the landlord agreed to early termination on the basis that the tenant is liable for rent until a new tenancy starts.
I also find that the landlord’s email of 5 September is inconsistent with the tenant’s assertion that the landlord did not respond when advised of the moving date and therefore, impliedly, accepted that the tenancy would end on 5 October.
On 6 October 2018, the landlord sent an email to the tenant noting that rent had not been paid and asking whether the tenant’s wanted to use the bond to “ride out the remainder of the 12 months to October 24 th ?”. The email also recorded that the landlord understood that, with the tenant’s wish to break the lease, they would pay “to the 12 months at the very least.”
The tenant replied on 7 October stating that they had paid to 5 th October as they believed that was acceptable because the landlord had not replied to their 31 August email advising the move out date. The tenant also stated that it would like the bond refunded in full as soon as possible.
There were intermittent attempts to resolve the bond issue. The landlord maintained that its position was as per the 15 August email; tenants liable for rent until a new tenancy started but were prepared to accept a compromise whereby they would receive rent from the bond to 24 October, with the tenant’ receiving a balance of $755. The tenant did not accept that.
The tenant applied to the Bond Centre for a full bond refund which was opposed by the landlord. The tenant then applied to the Tribunal for the bond. The landlord was not aware that it had to make a cross application (s22B Residential Tenancies Act), so the bond was refunded to the tenant.
The tenant was critical of the landlord’s delay in making this application. However, the landlord has 6 years from the date of breach to make its application. The claim is within time. Further the landlord’s responses to the tenant’s attempts to recover the bond have been consistent. The tenant has been aware of the landlord’s position since October 2018. Findings & Conclusions
The tenancy was for a fixed term to 31 January 2019. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the tenant is liable for rent to that date or until a new tenancy starts (whichever is earlier). 4 4 There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within particular period and no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early - Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277
It is unlikely that the security or heating concerns raised by the tenants would have been grounds for early release from the fixed term tenancy. In any event, the tenant made no such application. Further, they did not allow the landlord the opportunity to resolve any issues before deciding to move. 5
A new tenancy started on 10 November 2018.
The landlord’s position is clearly set out in its email of 15 August 2018; the tenant could terminate early if they paid rent until a new tenancy started (emphasis added).
The tenant attempted to negotiate an earlier end date to 24 October and then to 5 October 2018. Neither of those dates were agreed to by the landlord.
The landlord was prepared to consider a 24 th October end date (after the tenant had moved and stopped paying rent), but by that time the tenant was claiming the tenancy ended on 5 October. There was no concluded agreement in relation to a 24 October end date.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent until a new tenancy started on 10 November 2018. That outstanding rent is $3,697.00.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955074 — net $3,724.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018	$3,697.00	Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,724.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,724.00

Order

Tim Jackson and Shelly Jackson must pay Bruce LK Davey and Helen Audrey Bush $3,724.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 10 November 2018)$3,697.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,724.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,724.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. 1
The landlord has applied for rent following the early termination of a fixed term tenancy in 2018. The landlord claimed rent of $3,697.00 to 10 November 2018, when a new tenancy started.
The tenant’s acknowledged that they owed some rent; for the period to 24 October 2018. Rent owing to 24 October 2018 would have been $1,971.42. 2 1 I indicated that the parties would receive a decision before the Christmas break. However, it has taken longer than anticipated to thoroughly review the documents and correspondence which the parties referred to. 2 The tenant’s referred to a figure of $1,755.71 for rent. That figure is for the period to 22 October, as shown on the landlord rent summary. Timeline
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 24 October 2017 to 31 January 2019.
The tenants contacted the landlord by email on 7 August 2018 asking to change the term of the tenancy to 12 months. The reason given was that the house was cold and expensive to heat.
The landlord did not reply immediately. The tenants sent a further email on 14 August 2018 advising that there had been a prowler and stating that “we would like to move out as soon as possible.”
The landlord replied to both email on 15 August 2018 with some options, including: “We can break the tenancy agreement early provided we can find a suitable tenant at a similar rate, with your lease ending as soon as the replacement tenancy starts.”
Alternatively, the landlord put forward options for addressing heating and security concerns. The tenant’s reply (16 August 2018) was dismissive of the offers to review and address security concerns. It is apparent that the tenant had decided to move. The tenant also stated their belief that they had an option to “revert back to the standard 12-month period” and queried whether that was no longer an option. 3
There were email exchanges regarding the landlord’s request for access to assess the heating issue. The landlord did not comment on the request for early termination again, until 5 September 2018. At the hearing, the landlord’s position remained as set out in the 15 August email. It said that it did not agree to an early termination other than on that basis; that the tenant would pay rent until a new tenancy started.
The tenant sent a further email on 18 August 2018 stating, “we would like to confirm that our tenancy will end on 24 th October.”
On 31 August 2018 the tenant advised, “we have found somewhere to move to so will be out and the house available to new tenants from the 5 th October.”
I do not seem to have the full email exchange between the parties. However, the tenants provided an email from the landlord on 5 September which stated: “I want to organise viewings so that they are convenient for you, while still moving quickly to make it possible to solve the lease break with no consequences.” 3 The fixed term to January 2019 had been requested by the tenant and agreed to by the landlord. The landlord was open to reducing the term, but there was no agreement or “option” for the tenant to unilaterally reduce the term.
In the context of the landlord’s 15 August email, I find that the reference to “no consequences” is confirmation that the landlord agreed to early termination on the basis that the tenant is liable for rent until a new tenancy starts.
I also find that the landlord’s email of 5 September is inconsistent with the tenant’s assertion that the landlord did not respond when advised of the moving date and therefore, impliedly, accepted that the tenancy would end on 5 October.
On 6 October 2018, the landlord sent an email to the tenant noting that rent had not been paid and asking whether the tenant’s wanted to use the bond to “ride out the remainder of the 12 months to October 24 th ?”. The email also recorded that the landlord understood that, with the tenant’s wish to break the lease, they would pay “to the 12 months at the very least.”
The tenant replied on 7 October stating that they had paid to 5 th October as they believed that was acceptable because the landlord had not replied to their 31 August email advising the move out date. The tenant also stated that it would like the bond refunded in full as soon as possible.
There were intermittent attempts to resolve the bond issue. The landlord maintained that its position was as per the 15 August email; tenants liable for rent until a new tenancy started but were prepared to accept a compromise whereby they would receive rent from the bond to 24 October, with the tenant’ receiving a balance of $755. The tenant did not accept that.
The tenant applied to the Bond Centre for a full bond refund which was opposed by the landlord. The tenant then applied to the Tribunal for the bond. The landlord was not aware that it had to make a cross application (s22B Residential Tenancies Act), so the bond was refunded to the tenant.
The tenant was critical of the landlord’s delay in making this application. However, the landlord has 6 years from the date of breach to make its application. The claim is within time. Further the landlord’s responses to the tenant’s attempts to recover the bond have been consistent. The tenant has been aware of the landlord’s position since October 2018. Findings & Conclusions
The tenancy was for a fixed term to 31 January 2019. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the tenant is liable for rent to that date or until a new tenancy starts (whichever is earlier). 4 4 There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within particular period and no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early - Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277
It is unlikely that the security or heating concerns raised by the tenants would have been grounds for early release from the fixed term tenancy. In any event, the tenant made no such application. Further, they did not allow the landlord the opportunity to resolve any issues before deciding to move. 5
A new tenancy started on 10 November 2018.
The landlord’s position is clearly set out in its email of 15 August 2018; the tenant could terminate early if they paid rent until a new tenancy started (emphasis added).
The tenant attempted to negotiate an earlier end date to 24 October and then to 5 October 2018. Neither of those dates were agreed to by the landlord.
The landlord was prepared to consider a 24 th October end date (after the tenant had moved and stopped paying rent), but by that time the tenant was claiming the tenancy ended on 5 October. There was no concluded agreement in relation to a 24 October end date.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent until a new tenancy started on 10 November 2018. That outstanding rent is $3,697.00.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955074 — Rent arrears at 178 Rutland Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955074 — Rent arrears at 178 Rutland Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions