What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966153?

The tribunal order states: Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay Robert Davies $427.00

How much money was awarded in case 4966153?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund First Weeks Rent: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11032232-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966153?

The tribunal order states: Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay Robert Davies $427.00

How much money was awarded in case 4966153?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund First Weeks Rent: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11032232-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 17, 55A Great North Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966153 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966153 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund first weeks rent	$400.00	Refund first weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$427.00

Order

Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay Robert Davies $427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6545127-001) to Robert Davies immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 30 October 2024.
The applicant has applied for a refund of the rent paid and the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
Mr Davies (the tenant) entered into a tenancy agreement with Nationwide Property Management Limited (the landlord) for the premises situated at 17, 55A Great North Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112. The agreement was signed by both parties on 11 July 2024. The tenancy was to officially start on 17 July 2024, with weekly rent set at $400.00 and a bond of $1,600.00. On the scheduled move-in date, 17 July 2024, the tenant had arranged for the transport of his belongings. However, the property manager contacted him that morning by txt to inform him that she was unwell and could not facilitate the move. As a result, the tenant had to pay for alternative accommodation for the night, as well as for the trailer, ute, and additional help to move the following day.
Later that afternoon, at 1:42 pm, the property manager reached out to the tenant, saying she was feeling better and asking if they could reschedule the move for Thursday 18 July 2024. The tenant reluctantly agreed, feeling he had no other choice but to accept the change.
However, on the rescheduled day, 18 July 2024, at 10:07 am, the property manager again informed the tenant by txt that she was still unwell and unable to proceed with the move. This forced the tenant to once again make alternative accommodation arrangements and incur additional costs for the trailer. At 12:41 pm on the same day, the property manager informed the tenant that her manager would follow up with him.
The tenant says the repeated delays and cancellations caused significant frustration and distress, having already made arrangements for the move. He felt the situation left him with no choice but to accommodate the changes, but the repeated disruptions resulted in both financial costs and emotional strain. The tenant had to pay for two additional nights of accommodation and re-organise his move twice, which placed a heavy burden on him financially. The ongoing stress and frustration affected his mental health, exacerbating his pre-existing conditions of stress, anxiety, and PTSD.
The tenant also faced confusion over the bond payment. When he took his tenancy agreement to WINZ, his application for bond assistance was declined. His family then arranged alternative accommodation for him. However, he later discovered that WINZ had approved his bond application without his knowledge. The tenant reached out to the landlord for clarification on how to proceed, particularly regarding the bond situation. The landlord informed him that, since he had agreed to push back the move-in date to Thursday, the tenancy was still in effect, and he would need to provide 28 days' written notice to terminate. The landlord acknowledged the tenant’s circumstances and offered to help find someone to take over the tenancy as soon as possible.
On 19 July 2024, the tenant submitted a 28-day termination notice, which the landlord confirmed was received. The last day of the tenancy was set for 15 August 2024. On 20 July 2024, the tenant asked to hand over the keys to the property. The landlord informed him that the office was closed over the weekend and that a joint inspection was required when passing the keys on. The earliest available time for the inspection was Monday 23 July 2024, at 9:30 am, but the tenant did not respond to the request. There was no further communication from the tenant regarding the return of the keys.
On the final day of the 28-day notice period, 15 August 2024, the tenant contacted the landlord regarding the bond. The landlord informed the tenant that as the had only paid the first weeks rent the bond would be partly used to cover three weeks of rent arrears, leaving only $400 to be refunded. The tenant disagreed with this deduction and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal, arguing that he should not be responsible for rent arrears due to the repeated delays and failures by the landlord to honour the agreed move-in date.
The tenant is seeking a refund of the first weeks rent paid, a full refund of the bond, compensation for additional costs incurred and the distress caused by the situation, and reimbursement of the filing fee for the Tenancy Tribunal application. He believes that the landlord’s failure to deliver on the promises made in the tenancy agreement caused him significant financial and emotional harm. The prolonged delays and the additional costs associated with the move have placed a severe strain on his mental health, making the situation even more difficult to endure. Analysis
In this case, the tenant has a strong basis for asserting that the landlord breached the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy agreement, signed on 11 July 2024, clearly stipulated that the tenancy was to commence on 17 July 2024, granting the tenant the right to occupy the premises on that date. When the landlord's property manager informed the tenant on the morning of 17 July that she was unwell and could not facilitate the move, it constituted a breach of the contract, as the tenant was entitled to vacant possession of the premises on the agreed date. This right is reinforced by section 37(1) RTA, which mandates that tenants have the right to vacant possession as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Although the landlord later contends that the tenant agreed to postpone the move-in date, this assertion does not hold, as section 11 RTA states that tenants cannot waive their rights under the Act. The repeated delays and the property manager's inability to facilitate the move not only breached the agreement but also left the tenant in a difficult position, forcing him to incur additional expenses for alternative accommodation and moving logistics.
Furthermore, the tenant's experience with confusion regarding the bond and the need to provide notice to terminate the tenancy adds complexity to the situation. The landlord's reliance on the tenant's supposed agreement to push back the move-in date lacks legal weight, as the tenant was initially entitled to occupy the premises on 17 July. Additionally, since the landlord did not file a cross- application regarding the bond, section 22B(2) RTA applies, necessitating the return of the bond in full to the tenant.
It is important to note that the landlord's actions effectively amount to repudiation of the contract, which is a fundamental breach of its terms. Under contract law, the tenant would be entitled to seek remedies, including cancellation of the contract under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. This legal framework further supports the tenant's position, allowing for the possibility of terminating the agreement due to the landlord's failure to uphold their obligations. Conclusion
In conclusion, I find that the tenant has successfully established his claim for a refund of the first week's rent and the full refund of the bond. The landlord's failure to provide vacant possession on the agreed move-in date constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement and RTA. The tenant's right to occupy the premises on 17 July 2024 was clear, and the subsequent delays caused unnecessary financial burden and stress.
While the tenant sought compensation for emotional distress, alternative accommodation and moving logistics, the evidence provided was insufficient to justify such an award. Therefore, I have not granted any compensation. However, given that the tenant has been substantially successful in his claim, I also order the reimbursement of the filing fee associated with his application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966153 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund first weeks rent	$400.00	Refund first weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$427.00

Order

Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay Robert Davies $427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6545127-001) to Robert Davies immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 30 October 2024.
The applicant has applied for a refund of the rent paid and the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
Mr Davies (the tenant) entered into a tenancy agreement with Nationwide Property Management Limited (the landlord) for the premises situated at 17, 55A Great North Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112. The agreement was signed by both parties on 11 July 2024. The tenancy was to officially start on 17 July 2024, with weekly rent set at $400.00 and a bond of $1,600.00. On the scheduled move-in date, 17 July 2024, the tenant had arranged for the transport of his belongings. However, the property manager contacted him that morning by txt to inform him that she was unwell and could not facilitate the move. As a result, the tenant had to pay for alternative accommodation for the night, as well as for the trailer, ute, and additional help to move the following day.
Later that afternoon, at 1:42 pm, the property manager reached out to the tenant, saying she was feeling better and asking if they could reschedule the move for Thursday 18 July 2024. The tenant reluctantly agreed, feeling he had no other choice but to accept the change.
However, on the rescheduled day, 18 July 2024, at 10:07 am, the property manager again informed the tenant by txt that she was still unwell and unable to proceed with the move. This forced the tenant to once again make alternative accommodation arrangements and incur additional costs for the trailer. At 12:41 pm on the same day, the property manager informed the tenant that her manager would follow up with him.
The tenant says the repeated delays and cancellations caused significant frustration and distress, having already made arrangements for the move. He felt the situation left him with no choice but to accommodate the changes, but the repeated disruptions resulted in both financial costs and emotional strain. The tenant had to pay for two additional nights of accommodation and re-organise his move twice, which placed a heavy burden on him financially. The ongoing stress and frustration affected his mental health, exacerbating his pre-existing conditions of stress, anxiety, and PTSD.
The tenant also faced confusion over the bond payment. When he took his tenancy agreement to WINZ, his application for bond assistance was declined. His family then arranged alternative accommodation for him. However, he later discovered that WINZ had approved his bond application without his knowledge. The tenant reached out to the landlord for clarification on how to proceed, particularly regarding the bond situation. The landlord informed him that, since he had agreed to push back the move-in date to Thursday, the tenancy was still in effect, and he would need to provide 28 days' written notice to terminate. The landlord acknowledged the tenant’s circumstances and offered to help find someone to take over the tenancy as soon as possible.
On 19 July 2024, the tenant submitted a 28-day termination notice, which the landlord confirmed was received. The last day of the tenancy was set for 15 August 2024. On 20 July 2024, the tenant asked to hand over the keys to the property. The landlord informed him that the office was closed over the weekend and that a joint inspection was required when passing the keys on. The earliest available time for the inspection was Monday 23 July 2024, at 9:30 am, but the tenant did not respond to the request. There was no further communication from the tenant regarding the return of the keys.
On the final day of the 28-day notice period, 15 August 2024, the tenant contacted the landlord regarding the bond. The landlord informed the tenant that as the had only paid the first weeks rent the bond would be partly used to cover three weeks of rent arrears, leaving only $400 to be refunded. The tenant disagreed with this deduction and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal, arguing that he should not be responsible for rent arrears due to the repeated delays and failures by the landlord to honour the agreed move-in date.
The tenant is seeking a refund of the first weeks rent paid, a full refund of the bond, compensation for additional costs incurred and the distress caused by the situation, and reimbursement of the filing fee for the Tenancy Tribunal application. He believes that the landlord’s failure to deliver on the promises made in the tenancy agreement caused him significant financial and emotional harm. The prolonged delays and the additional costs associated with the move have placed a severe strain on his mental health, making the situation even more difficult to endure. Analysis
In this case, the tenant has a strong basis for asserting that the landlord breached the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy agreement, signed on 11 July 2024, clearly stipulated that the tenancy was to commence on 17 July 2024, granting the tenant the right to occupy the premises on that date. When the landlord's property manager informed the tenant on the morning of 17 July that she was unwell and could not facilitate the move, it constituted a breach of the contract, as the tenant was entitled to vacant possession of the premises on the agreed date. This right is reinforced by section 37(1) RTA, which mandates that tenants have the right to vacant possession as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Although the landlord later contends that the tenant agreed to postpone the move-in date, this assertion does not hold, as section 11 RTA states that tenants cannot waive their rights under the Act. The repeated delays and the property manager's inability to facilitate the move not only breached the agreement but also left the tenant in a difficult position, forcing him to incur additional expenses for alternative accommodation and moving logistics.
Furthermore, the tenant's experience with confusion regarding the bond and the need to provide notice to terminate the tenancy adds complexity to the situation. The landlord's reliance on the tenant's supposed agreement to push back the move-in date lacks legal weight, as the tenant was initially entitled to occupy the premises on 17 July. Additionally, since the landlord did not file a cross- application regarding the bond, section 22B(2) RTA applies, necessitating the return of the bond in full to the tenant.
It is important to note that the landlord's actions effectively amount to repudiation of the contract, which is a fundamental breach of its terms. Under contract law, the tenant would be entitled to seek remedies, including cancellation of the contract under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. This legal framework further supports the tenant's position, allowing for the possibility of terminating the agreement due to the landlord's failure to uphold their obligations. Conclusion
In conclusion, I find that the tenant has successfully established his claim for a refund of the first week's rent and the full refund of the bond. The landlord's failure to provide vacant possession on the agreed move-in date constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement and RTA. The tenant's right to occupy the premises on 17 July 2024 was clear, and the subsequent delays caused unnecessary financial burden and stress.
While the tenant sought compensation for emotional distress, alternative accommodation and moving logistics, the evidence provided was insufficient to justify such an award. Therefore, I have not granted any compensation. However, given that the tenant has been substantially successful in his claim, I also order the reimbursement of the filing fee associated with his application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966153 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 17, 55A Great North Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966153 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 17, 55A Great North Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112

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